Interestingly, when CSW posted its reply to BL (here), which drew on many scientific experts, it was focused entirely on discrediting individual statements that BL had made
Displaying his trademark doublethink, Bjorn Lomborg’s latest op-ed in the Wall Street Journal switches between recognizing the risks of climate change and rejecting the need for meaningful action in the near term. Lomborg incorporates misleading and discredited scientific information to justify dangerous delays in climate action.rather than pointing out that the giant "if-then" statement at the core of the article's architecture would obviously return an error if it were fed into any computer capable of boolean logic.
This struck me because the dialogue (in both directions) was focused on discrediting one's opponent, by demonstrating they don't understand science (BL does this to Obama, and CSW does this to BL), rather than finding a logical solution to the problem (or simply having a logical discussion about it). This seemed unfortunate, since in this particular case, the physical science is pretty irrelevant to the actual policy discussion. The entire discussion should be focused on the economics. I blame BL for inappropriately bringing the science into the discussion, but I wish CSW had pointed out that that was the error, since I think doing so (here and elsewhere) would get us back on track to meaningful discussion rather than escalating the scientific mudslinging.
My fully reply to the CSW is below the fold (I had been in referee-mode at the time, which is probably evident).